/sci/ - Science & Math

No.
But for some reason not saying that it is gets you branded as some kind of quack by fedoras who think at a lower level.

>>6968806
Who would it be fooling?

>>6968806
No, that doesn't even make sense. The word "illusion" already entails that there exists a subject having the illusory experience. Thus, asking if consciousness is an illusion already presupposes the possibility of having an experience, namely an illusory one.

I guess you can reject the existence of consciousness, but in doing so it seems to me that one necessarily ends up with solipsism/direct realism. As Wittgenstein says, pure realism and solipsism coincide because in both the subject/object distinction is rejected and all we are left with is a single world.

>>6968836
Bet your parents are really chuffed with you, huh?

>>6968836
Also, since I definitely experience something which feels to me like consciousness and which I'm frankly quite happy with, and my theory of mind causes me to assume everyone else does (which I think is fair), then even if consciousness doesn't exist I don't really think that implies anything philosophically. It just means that whatever we have is something else just as good.

(This is also the answer to the question "Is free will real?")

>>6968806
That I'm not sure about OP what I am sure about is that Daniel Dannett is an illusion...

>>6968806
"Consciousness" is a purely descriptive term, so the question makes no sense at all. Ok, consciousness is an illusion, and now we have to invent another word for subjective experience. Why don't we scrap consciousness from the dictionary (it's only an illusion, noone cares) and call the new thing "consciousness"?

>>6968836
le pedantry missing le point face

>>6968836
Allow me to translate what the OP meant from philosopher-jargon:

"Does our subjective experience of our internal theater actually reflect our real mental processes, or is it composed merely of post-hoc rationalizations giving the illusion that we are actually aware of our own minds?"

>>6968879
So all Dennet does is arguing against mind-body dualism of the form where mind influences matter? Well duh.

>>6968879
so basically

>Is subjective experience real or just a schizophrenic delusion?

am I understanding this correctly?

>>6968888
Aren't schizophrenic delusions subjective experiences? I don't really see how one could plausibly deny their own subjective experience, seems self-refuting.

I would assume that the issue is less the objective existence of consciousness by definition. It's clear that it exists, It is the lens through which we make that distinction, But more the link between consciousness and agency. Does the ability to think and feel award us free will? Are our reactions more than reactive, or are we along for a ride we don't actually control?

Some evidence points to no:
http://io9.com/5975778/scientific-evidence-that-you-probably-dont-have-free-will

But I happen to think that's it's an evidence of absence case. When I make a decision it does feel like I'm making a choice and preforming actions that I dictate down to a "T", But that feeling could be the actual decision mechanism at work. My brain could be pre-set to react to certain things in certain manors by genetics, or deity, or any numbers of factors, I can't read those things in real time to confirm that they're not, So I can't make a concrete decision other than to assume that they are or aren't.

Consciousness is all our senses, our body and our brain working together. Once it terminates, we're dead.
Sometimes our brains can be fooled to see illusions or hallucinations. But that's just because we have flaws. Doesn't mean that consciousness is an illusion, its very real.

>>6968890
Not that one *has* subjective experience - that's not what the question is, of course you have subjective experience.

The question is whether that subjective experience actually reflects what's going on in your brain. When you make a decision, did you actually make that decision the way it felt in your brain - weighing options, making arguments - or were those simply post-hoc rationalizations for a decision your brain already made?

>>6968879
Lel I understand that. But the entire discussion is by its very nature couched in dualistic terms. The manner in which you articulated the question already presupposes subjective experience. Words like "illusion", "aware", "cartesian/internal theater", are only interpretable by means of reference to the phenomenon of experience.

If we ask "is consciousness an illusion", we're either begging the question, or asking a question which has a very trivial "analytic" and tautological answer.

It doesn't make sense to say I'm not having the experience I'm having right now. I can of course question whether YOU are experiencing, but not whether I am experiencing. The real question is whether or not this experience I'M having is something separate from the physical world. If it isn't then other minds don't exist and solipsism and direct realism are true (subjects and things-in-themselves do not exist). If on the other hand some form of dualism (or emergentism) holds, then other minds can exist, and representational realism may be true.

>>6968894
>The question is whether that subjective experience actually reflects what's going on in your brain. When you make a decision, did you actually make that decision the way it felt in your brain - weighing options, making arguments - or were those simply post-hoc rationalizations for a decision your brain already made?
This has nothing at all to do with "is consciousness an illusion?"

>>6968904
That's not what it's saying. Of course you're having the experience you're having right now, that borders on tautological. And the question is unrelated to whether it's separate from the physical world.

The question is whether what you're experiencing right now actually reflects reality - i.e. to what extent do the mental "knobs" and "buttons" and other controls we feel we have over our own actions actually figure in to the brain's decision-making processes, if at all? We feel we have insight into our own minds, but do we really?

>>6968910
It is literally what "is consciousness an illusion" means. Of course it's not trying to argue "do we have consciousness" - of fucking course we do. It's asking "Is it illusory" - consciousness is our subjective experience of the internal workings of our own minds. For it to be "illusory" would be for it to be completely wrong and not reflect the real mental processes at all.

Does it matter? If you can't conceive of any change the answer to a question might make, the question is worthless.

it´s not importent if the consciousness is a illusion. even if its a illusion ,its a illusion created from your own body.
you could ask if love is a illusion the answer
is non importent.
hope i could help you idiot.

Why do people redefine the word "consciousness" instead of saying what they mean? If they actually spell it out, will people realize how retarded they are?

>>6968894
nice explanation.

I'm of the opinion that it sort of is and isn't at the same time.

I think of it like vision, you're not actually seeing the present, you're seeing a reconstruction of the near past. Likewise, you're not actively making decisions with your inner monologue, but you ARE observing a reconstruction of the thought process that lead to that decision.

better question: is consciousness vestigial?

>>6968806
I'm shitposting on /sci/, therefore I am. Don't need anything else.

>>6968806
Naw, man.

>>6968806
Yes, it's just an idea in our minds.

>>6968806
My mum was.

>tfw "consciousness is pseudoscience" troll stopped posting

>>6968806
time is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, money is an illusion, happiness is an illusion, civilization is an illusion, determinism is an illusion, life is an illusion, illusions are an illusion, normal is an illusion, free will is an illusion, death is an illusion, love is an illusion, democracy is an illusion, reality is an illusion, control is an illusion

am i cool yet

>Is consciousness an illusion?
Only if your not aware of it

>Is consciousness an illusion?
Only if you're not aware of it

>>6970752
You're right, though.

Do you guys realize you're just pushing people backwards by associating this level of thinking to fedora stereotypes? They're pretty good theories.

A better question is if it's quantum. In that case our consciousness could get transferred to a parallel dimension, right? Or we could have counterpart made of waves and not particles

Do you consider your computers operating system to be an illusion?

If consciousness is an illusion how can we be here discussing consciousness?

Nice job defining consciousness.

>>6968806
Either life is an illusion or were just confused by how the world and brain works together. Consciousness is not an illusion, philosophers just like to throw that around as if it explains anything at all.

>>6968806

Therefore you OP, are an illusion and don't exist.

Conciousness is the only truth to our objective reality

>>6972737
>implying consciousness is the self

We aren't even able to properly define and ask the correct question

Can consciousness be an illusion when illusion is already a consciousness ?

You were just given the D. No need to thank.